[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1468362104.8908.43.camel@hpe.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 22:22:05 +0000
From: "Kani, Toshimitsu" <toshi.kani@....com>
To: "snitzer@...hat.com" <snitzer@...hat.com>
CC: "linux-raid@...r.kernel.org" <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"dan.j.williams@...el.com" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
"dm-devel@...hat.com" <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
"ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com" <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org>,
"agk@...hat.com" <agk@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: dm stripe: add DAX support
On Fri, 2016-06-24 at 14:29 -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>
> BTW, if in your testing you could evaluate/quantify any extra overhead
> from DM that'd be useful to share. It could be there are bottlenecks
> that need to be fixed, etc.
Here are some results from fio benchmark. The test is single-threaded and is
bound to one CPU.
DAX LVM IOPS NOTE
---------------------------------------
Y N 790K
Y Y 754K 5% overhead with LVM
N N 567K
N Y 457K 20% overhead with LVM
DAX: Y: mount -o dax,noatime, N: mount -o noatime
LVM: Y: dm-linear on pmem0 device, N: pmem0 device
fio: bs=4k, size=2G, direct=1, rw=randread, numjobs=1
Among the 5% overhead with DAX/LVM, the new DM direct_access interfaces
account for less than 0.5%.
dm_blk_direct_access 0.28%
linear_direct_access 0.17%
The average latency increases slightly from 0.93us to 0.95us. I think most of
the overhead comes from the submit_bio() path, which is used only for
accessing metadata with DAX. I believe this is due to cloning bio for each
request in DM. There is 12% more L2 miss in total.
Without DAX, 20% overhead is observed with LVM. Average latency increases
from 1.39us to 1.82us. Without DAX, bio is cloned for both data and metadata.
Thanks,
-Toshi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists